Unshackled from the restrictions under the Obama administration, immigration agents and officers are making far more arrests — but are still keeping their chief focus on criminals, authorities said as the released number detailing the first 100 days under President Trump.

Arrests of criminal aliens is up nearly 20 percent, reaching nearly 30,500, while arrests of those without criminal convictions is up 60 percent, reaching about 10,800. Combined, they show a rise of 38 percent in total arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for policing the interior of the country.

Dinan reports that perhaps most striking is surge in at-large arrests made out in the community. Those have risen by 50 percent compared to a year earlier, according to ICE.

While criminals are still the chief targets, ICE said it has reversed the Obama administration’s policy of carving out entire classes of illegal immigrants from any danger of deportation. That’s expanded the potential targets from just a couple million to potentially almost all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S.

Meanwhile, detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, detention center run by GEO Group have filed a class-action lawsuit. It claims the detention center violates federal anti-slavery laws.

Attorney Nina Disalvo is an attorney represents the detainees in Colorado. She said it’s illegal to pay them $1 a day.

“It’s not the market wage that GEO would have to pay if it were absorbing the real cost of running an immigrant detention center,” Disalvo said. “If GEO actually had to hire janitorial staff to clean its facility, it would have to pay that staff a market wage. And it’s not paying the detainees a market wage for this work.”

Disalvo said some of her clients were forced to do janitorial work and clean large areas within the facility without pay. “If they did not do so, they were threatened with or placed in solitary confinement,” Disalvo said. “Our clients allege that forcing people to work under threat of solitary confinement constitutes forced labor under the federal forced labor laws.”

GEO Group has denied the lawsuit’s allegations. A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs enforcement says the agency does not comment on pending litigation. Virginia Kice, ICE spokeswoman, confirmed that detainees at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma earn $1 per day for voluntary work. She said about 25 percent of detainees participate in the program, and that no detainees perform unpaid work at the facility.

The Colorado lawsuit could have implications for the Northwest Detention Center. Northwestern University political science professor Jacqueline Stevens said that if the plaintiffs prevail, GEO Group will need to pay out up to hundreds of millions of dollars in back wages and penalties.

“This could mean the end of government contracts with the private prison industry for housing people held under immigration laws, and the return to more sensible policies,” Stevens said.

My opinion?

I’ve never been a fan of private prisons.

For those who don’t know, a private prison or for-profit prison is a place in which individuals are physically confined or incarcerated by a third party that is contracted by a government agency. Private prison companies typically enter into contractual agreements with governments that commit prisoners and then pay a per diem or monthly rate, either for each prisoner in the facility, or for each place available, whether occupied or not. Such contracts may be for the operation only of a facility, or for design, construction and operation.

According to the ACLU, private prisons have been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions. Also, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, for-profit companies were responsible for approximately 7 percent of state prisoners and 18 percent of federal prisoners in 2015 (the most recent numbers currently available).

While supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence is mixed at best—in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones.

Finally, it appears that immigrants are the ones filling these detention centers. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that in 2016, private prisons held nearly three-quarters of federal immigration detainees. In light of today’s anti-immigrant presidential administration, it’s no coincidence that private stocks for U.S. prisons have increased 100% since Trump’s election.

During a traffic stop, police officers in Joliet, Illinois, searched the defendant Elijah Manuel and found a vitamin bottle containing pills. Suspecting the pills to be illegal drugs, the officers conducted a field test, which came back negative for any controlled substance. Still, they arrested Manuel and took him to the police station.

There, an evidence technician tested the pills and got the same negative result, but claimed in his report that one of the pills tested “positive for the probable presence of ecstasy.” An arresting officer also reported that, based on his “training and experience,” he “knew the pills to be ecstasy.” On the basis of those false statements, another officer filed a sworn complaint charging Manuel with unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

Pretrial Detention

Relying exclusively on that complaint, a county court judge found probable cause to detain Manuel pending trial. While Manuel was in jail, the Illinois police laboratory tested the seized pills and reported that they contained no controlled substances. But Manuel remained in custody, spending a total of 48 days in pretrial detention.

For those who don’t know, pretrial detention refers to detaining of an accused person in a criminal case before the trial has taken place, either because of a failure to post bail or due to denial of release under a pre-trial detention statute.

Civil Rights Lawsuit

At any rate, more than two years after his arrest, but less than two years after his criminal case was dismissed, Manuel filed a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983 against Joliet and several of its police officers (collectively, the City), alleging that his arrest and detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The Federal District Court dismissed Manuel’s suit, holding, (1) that the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred his unlawful arrest claim, and, (2) that under binding legal precedent, pretrial detention following the start of legal process could not give rise to a Fourth Amendment claim. Manuel appealed the dismissal of his unlawful detention claim. however, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Manuel appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that Mr. Manuel may indeed challenge his pretrial detention on Fourth Amendment grounds even though he was in custody. It explained that the Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from detaining a person without probable cause. Furthermore, where legal process has gone forward, but has done nothing to satisfy the probable-cause requirement, it cannot extinguish a detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim.

“That was the case here,” said the Court. “Because the judge’s determination of probable cause was based solely on fabricated evidence, it did not expunge Manuel’s Fourth Amendment claim.” Consequently, Mr. Manuel proved a valid a Fourth Amendment claim when he sought relief for his arrest and pretrial detention.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should have determined the claim’s accrual date, unless it finds that the City has previously waived its timeliness argument. In doing so, the court should look to the common law of torts for guidance while also closely attending to the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue.

With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

My opinion? Good decision. Pretrial release is a huge issue in criminal law. In Washington, both CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2.1 govern the release of people accused of crimes. The purposes of the pretrial release decision include providing due process to those accused of crime, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by securing defendants for trial, and protecting victims, witnesses and the community from threat, danger or interference.

The judge or judicial officer decides whether to release a defendant on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond, release a defendant on a condition or combination of conditions, temporarily detain a defendant, or detain a defendant according to procedures outlined in these Standards.

Ultimately, the law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of support.

Here, Mr. Manuel was held in jail for 48 days when police lacked probable cause on any charges. That’s awful. Fortunately justice was served when his case was dismissed and that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his lawsuit.

For more information on getting released from jail, please read my Legal Guide titled, Making Bail. And please contact my office for a free consultation if you, a friend or family member find themselves in jail.

In State v. Mitchell the WA Court of Appeals Division I decided that a fare enforcement officer (FEO) may detain a passenger for a period of time necessary to identify a bus rider and may also issue a notice of civil infraction when a passenger fails to pay the required fare or produce proof of payment when asked, if the infraction occurs in the officer’s presence. Finally, a “passenger” includes a person that the FEO observes stepping off the bus.

Here, Mitchell was convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in the First Degree. The firearms were discovered when a fare enforcement officer stopped him to check proof of fare payment after he exited a Metro bus. Mitchell argues he was unlawfully detained and the trial court erred by not suppressing evidence of the firearms.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that RCW 35.58.585(1) allows metropolitan municipal corporations to designate individuals to monitor fare payment. These persons have all the powers granted to enforcement officers under RCW 7.80.050 and 7.80.060. This means an FEO can issue a notice of civil infraction when the infraction occurs in the officer’s presence, request identification, and detain a person for a period of time reasonably necessary to identify the person. Also, under RCW 35.58.585(2)(b) the law specifically grants FEOs the additional authority for the following:

(i) Request proof of payment from passengers; (ii) Request personal identification from a passenger who does not produce proof of payment when requested; (iii) Issue a citation and (iv) Request that a passenger leave the bus or other mode of public transportation when the passenger has not produced proof of payment after being asked to do so by a person designated to monitor fare payment.

Here, the defendant challenged the legality of the stop. He argued that the word “passenger” includes only those persons physically present on a mode of public transportation. Under this theory, an FEO may request proof of payment from someone currently traveling on a bus, because that traveler’s freedom of movement is already restricted by his or her presence on a moving vehicle. However, once the person disembarks the bus, additional authority is needed to request proof of payment, because to do so an FEO must first stop the person.

Unfortunately for Mitchell, the WA Court of Appeals disagreed. They said that here, there is no question Mitchell was a passenger. The FEO witnessed Mitchell disembarking the bus. He asked Mitchell and the other departing passengers for their proof of payment as they stepped off the bus. By using the bus, as a passenger, Mitchell had already incurred the obligation to display proof of payment when asked. Under these facts, the FEO acted within the scope of his statutory authority by requesting proof of payment from Mitchell. Additional authority to detain was unnecessary.

Also, because Michell did not have ID on himself, the FEO had the authority to detain Mitchell for the time reasonably necessary to identify him. Accordingly, the FEO radioed for assistance and, within minutes, police arrived and confirmed Mitchell’s identity. At each step of this encounter, the FEO acted within the scope of his statutory authority.

The Court of Appeals upheld Mitchell’s conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm First Degree.

H.N. is a college student who was less than 21 years of age at the time of the events leading to this case. She worked at part time jobs, and she had two roommates who worked with her at one of her jobs. After midnight on a night in May 2014, H.N.’s two roommates returned home to discover her unconscious on the floor and lying in a pool of her own vomit. Nearby there was an empty bottle of wine, an empty bottle of Nyquil, and a partially empty bottle of vodka. H.N. briefly awoke but then passed out again. One roommate called 911, and medics responded to the scene.

Thereafter, the State petitioned for up to 14 days of additional inpatient treatment, pursuant to the involuntary treatment act, RCW 71.05. For those who don’t know, detainees like H.N. may petition their local superior courts to be released from detention and observation. However, courts won’t release detainees if the detainee is likely to gravely injure themselves or someone else upon release.

On May 7, 2014, the court conducted a hearing on H.N.’s petition for release. At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of a psychologist who evaluated H.N. at the hospital. The psychologist testified as an expert. Part of her testimony was based on what purported to be e-mailed screenshots of text messages between H.N. and her boyfriend, “A.” These messages were exchanged on the night her roommates found her unconscious on the floor, lying in a pool of her vomit. The psychologist read several of these text messages into the record. Over H.N.’s objection on the basis of lack of foundation, the court admitted this evidence.

For those who don’t know, the “lack of foundation” objection most often applies to exhibits or pieces of evidence other than testimony that are brought into court without an explanation of where they came from or what they represent. Foundation is usually laid by having a witness testify as to what the object is.

At any rate, and after the hearing, the trial court found that H.N. suffered from a mental disorder and presented a likelihood of serious harm to herself. The court entered an order committing H.N. for involuntary treatment for a period of 14 days. H.N. appealed the court’s decision to detain her.

The WA Court of Appeals took the case and decided the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted as substantive evidence e-mailed screenshots of text messages that the State’s expert witness used during her testimony.

The Court decided that the text message evidence was properly authenticated pursuant to ER 901(b). For those who don’t know ER 901(b) is an evidence rule which allows or disallows evidence depending on whether the evidence is properly “authenticated” (or not).

Here, the Court of Appeals gave many reasons why H.N.’s text messages were, in fact, authentic. She gave out-of-court acknowledgments that she sent the messages, the identifying information at the top of the text messages showed that she was the sender of the messages, her phone number matched the contact information in her medical chart, the messages consistently reference names of people in her life, the messages were consistent with certain events in H.N.’s life, and the timing of the text messages were consistent with her hospitalization on the night of the incident.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s detention of H.N. and concluded that text message evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that H.N. posed a likelihood of serious harm to herself.

My opinion? The Court’s logic appears sound. Although the text messages are inadmissible Hearsay under Evidence Rule (ER) 801, hearsay is, in fact, admissible under certain circumstances. Also, courts may consider evidence that might otherwise be objectionable under other rules of evidence. They can rely upon such information as lay opinions, hearsay, or the proffered evidence itself in making its determination. Such information must be reliable. Here, ER 901 allowed the State to authenticate the text message evidence. It was reliable. Therefore, it was admissible.